|
Post by stevec on Mar 6, 2014 22:32:24 GMT -6
Eliott, You take the Bible much too seriously. I've got you pegged for a biblical version of a Trekkie. What are you dressed as right now................oh, wait, I know.................you're dressed as a "Ham".... Hoo, boyee! I obviously read far too much. What popped into mind upon reading this was Scout Finch's ham costume that kept her from seeing her attacker and running the night Boo Radley saved her life by employing Bob Ewell's butcher knife already used to slash Scout's costume upon Ewell himself, fatally. Helluva good book. Too bad Harper Lee had only one brilliant piece of literature in her, but what a masterpiece it is! Smeliott's next role play will be Abraham's prick, he seems preoccupied with those sorts of biblical themes - very fitting for a putz.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 6, 2014 22:43:51 GMT -6
Not much of a contender for your Mr. Sensitivity title, is he, Steve? Nowhere near your subtlety and finesse. He's an amateur. He's too emotionally attached to the Bible which we all know leads to mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 7, 2014 17:58:28 GMT -6
I find it possible that both Dot and Elliot are right. Dot is right in the sense that there is no consensus as to whether it was castration or rape. However, Elliot would be right in that it was much more than just "looking".
Interestingly enough, the statement included the name of Canaan, which seems to be bypassed by the conversation. One can view that in reference to the curse that it had additional implications, in fact, it could be viewed as a prophetic statement.
The word erwa (#6172) – Strongs
nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda pudenda (implying shameful exposure) nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour exposed, undefended (fig.)
and is used very often in context of illicit sex or rape and therefore one can logically come to the conclusion that it was much more than just "looking"
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 7, 2014 17:59:28 GMT -6
Or one could say your un-attachment to the Bible leads to mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 7, 2014 19:22:45 GMT -6
Okay, so let's suppose that Ham performed some kind of indecent sexual act upon Noah and wasn't merely a voyeur. Sodomy, for instance.
Then, what kind of sense at all would Shem's and Japhet's covering their heads and walking backwards into the tent in order to put blankets over Noah's nakedness possibly signify? Laying a blanket over a man who's been raped? More idiotically, covering up the site of a castration while not looking as you do that?
Why wouldn't the writer simply have said that Noah called Shem and Japhet his good sons for having come to his aid when he desperately needed help if being delicate and tactful about referring to a dreadful sexual assault was what was intended by the writer?
The details reported about the blanket covering make no sense at all in the context of a violent sexual assault. Violent sexual assault isn't something the biblical writers are too discreet to mention outright in other instances, so why in this one if that's actually the reference? Homophobia? Is THAT it?
Not a thing in the text we have indicates more happened than violation of a strict taboo forbidding a child's seeing a parent's undefended nakedness. What would be really interesting would be finding a manuscript that demonstrates the text we had previously was carefully censored at some point in time. As weird as this account is, I could believe somebody did a bunch of censorship on it.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 7, 2014 20:30:49 GMT -6
Okay, so let's suppose that Ham performed some kind of indecent sexual act upon Noah and wasn't merely a voyeur. Sodomy, for instance. Then, what kind of sense at all would Shem's and Japhet's covering their heads and walking backwards into the tent in order to put blankets over Noah's nakedness possibly signify? Laying a blanket over a man who's been raped? More idiotically, covering up the site of a castration while not looking as you do that? Why wouldn't the writer simply have said that Noah called Shem and Japhet his good sons for having come to his aid when he desperately needed help if being delicate and tactful about referring to a dreadful sexual assault was what was intended by the writer? The details reported about the blanket covering make no sense at all in the context of a violent sexual assault. Violent sexual assault isn't something the biblical writers are too discreet to mention outright in other instances, so why in this one if that's actually the reference? Homophobia? Is THAT it? Not a thing in the text we have indicates more happened than violation of a strict taboo forbidding a child's seeing a parent's undefended nakedness. What would be really interesting would be finding a manuscript that demonstrates the text we had previously was carefully censored at some point in time. As weird as this account is, I could believe somebody did a bunch of censorship on it. First, and most obvious of all, it is one short sentence and therefore we are relegated to thoughts and opinions. Ultimately, if one's position is "it is ludicrous", that person has every right to that thought as one who offers a different viewpoint. Second, we are looking at it with the perspective of our own culture and even our own personal convictions of what is correct moral thought as well as what is to honor a father. I would think that ultimately it is a matter of the heart. Certainly with the "bragging" of Ham, there was something about the heart that probably was later passed on to Canaan. From what I understand, the Canaanites went so far as to have sex with animals. What did Ham do exactly? What was the full scope of what he left behind? We don't know other than it was thoroughly rebuked by Noah. We can only theorize, but there was a time when to honor a woman was not to have sex before marriage. Today's "honor" is not the same as it was 50 years ago. One cannot judge yesteryear's "honor" with today's culture and viewpoint. Again, more than anything, I think it was a matter of the heart and the two showed that respect. As I said before, my position would be classified as a viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 7, 2014 22:41:26 GMT -6
Or one could say your un-attachment to the Bible leads to mistakes. I doubt it, Ken. There's a good chance I'd be more narrow minded and bigoted if I were attached to the Bible. We wouldn't want that, would we?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 7, 2014 22:53:17 GMT -6
I'm with you, Dot. The Bible has never been known to pull punches.
Jewish scholars and rabbis are not immune from making stupid statements and shooting their mouths off, just to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 8, 2014 3:48:44 GMT -6
First, and most obvious of all, it is one short sentence and therefore we are relegated to thoughts and opinions. Not exactly. That sentence must be understood by how it relates to the others in context. An important part of how any given sentence relates to those others is "Is what I think this sentence means supported by the rest of the text?" And that's my problem with interpretations that Ham raped or castrated Noah. How on earth do Shem and Japhet's actions follow if the context is indeed that of sexual assault? Not necessarily. One hallowed principle of legitimate literary criticism is that one's interpretation must have sufficient justification actually in the text to support it. The text must clearly support the interpretation. We are on dangerous ground as critics when we begin guessing that a writer meant something other than is actually stated, claiming that a given text is nuanced more than reasonably appears to be the case. Anyone who does this had better have other works by that same writer to point to as so similar in context, sentence structure and wording that the passage in question can reasonably be said to resemble them. That constitutes another possible justification, one we don't have for this text since we've no idea who wrote it. Yes, we could guess by means of stylistic clues that other biblical texts are by this same writer, but the supporting ground gets very much shakier when we start guessing in that manner. Could be a skillful imitation that we have no means of detecting. In short, as I used to tell my students, an interpretation that depends on reading things into the text must have a very solid basis such as I indicated above. The best interpretation most often is the one that doesn't stray from what is actually said. And therein lies my significant problem with interpretations claiming that violent sexual assault is what occurred. None of the details we're given make sense in light of that interpretation. So, deal with the specifics, Ken, instead of this "Mine's okay, yours is okay" stuff. SHOW how your interpretation follows from the text better than mine does, and wonder of wonders, I might actually agree that yours really is better. Applicable and inescapable up to a point, Ken. However, an honest critic endeavors to look at what is said in this text as reflecting a very different culture and consciously sets aside one's own culture's views scrupulously. My interpretation is VERY far removed indeed from what my familial and cultural upbringing would impose upon the Ham-Noah situation. If I yielded to my personal instincts, I'd agree that "there has to be more going on" here than merely seeing a parent naked. What bragging? Point to anything in the text that shows you aren't simply assuming that. Where does it say Ham bragged? Doesn't it make sense that he simply went and told his brothers something like, "Guys, you're not gonna believe this, but Dad's passed out drunk in his tent and naked! Seriously! I just saw him. I'm telling you he's sprawled out entirely naked!"? Good job here, Ken. Well done, in fact.This shows awareness that we'd do better to go no further than "don't know" where all these overtly sexual read-in's are concerned because what is actually said does not clearly support that anything more occurred than what is stated. Put this "of the heart" in context with specifics. I agree with you that Shem and Japhet showed appropriate respect within a context where what we're told they did makes sense. Ham observed parental nakedness, apparently a seriously taboo act. His brothers sought to prevent further violation of the taboo by carefully assuring they wouldn't accidentally see anything they shouldn't as they covered Noah's naked body. THAT follows reasonably from the text we have. Now, tell me how the description of their actions makes sense in the context of a literal sexual assault, because that's the sticking point I have with these "something more happened" interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 8, 2014 3:57:56 GMT -6
I'm with you, Dot. The Bible has never been known to pull punches. Jewish scholars and rabbis are not immune from making stupid statements and shooting their mouths off, just to be heard. Yup. A couple of the rabbinic interpretations I read had all the flair and flavor of a sermon. Both, incidentally, supported the idea that a violent sexual assault is what this text is about.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 8, 2014 7:16:17 GMT -6
It is true that "sentence must be understood by how it relates to the others in context. ". So, if you take what I said "in context" we have two differing positions of either castration or rape. Therefore, in context Dot, "we are relegated to thoughts and opinions". What we do know that whichever of the two, it was enough to have a judgment executed over him. As I mentioned further below, honor differs in cultures. In one culture, to throw a shoe at him is to "dishonor" the person, in another it means nothing. What is noted is that the two "honored" their father. And yet you just made my point. Notice "therein lies my significant problem with interpretations claiming that violent sexual assault is what occurred. None of the details we're given make sense in light of that interpretation. " validating my two points. 1) The sentence was short 2) Ultimately, you have placed "your opinion" over mine and you think it is valid enough (or have inferred). However, your position doesn't validate the judgment. If it doesn't match the judgment, then your position is very weak at the most. If a violent act occurred, then the judgment seems more applicable thus favoring my position. But, like I said, "that person has every right to that thought as one who offers a different viewpoint." i'm not saying you are right. I believe you are wrong. There certainly was more going on. There is a problem with your position. 1) You have already assumed that you are correct that all he did was look 2) If that is all that he did, why he go and tell his brothers "I just saw my dad naked". If it was a dishonorable act, why not keep the big trap shut? Therefore, my position has more of a valid position than yours. I gave the reason for "sexual assault" by the definition of the word from Strongs. The definition itself gives the understanding of illicit sex. Why would the word not be taken into account?
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 8, 2014 8:22:58 GMT -6
Just a minute, Ken. You're speaking here as if I simply made up my mind that no sexual violence occurred and looked only for things that justified that preconceived opinion.
1) You're dead wrong that I'm assuming that my view is the only correct one. For one thing, I thought through carefully how the text might justify the sexual assault interpretation before deciding that mine makes more sense because too much must be assumed for assault to be what happened. That is what responsible and honest criticism demands. Therefore, looking carefully at the text to see if other interpretations could fit better is what I do.
2) Why would I ask you for specifics showing that violent sexual assault makes more sense as an interpretation if I have a cherished interpretation I'm unwilling to let go of? In fact, if you'll re-read, you'll see more than one place where I've begged you or anyone else to show I'm wrong.
Geez, Ken, as a pastor, you'd know from much experience of human weakness, I should think, that people don't necessarily do the honorable thing. In fact, they more often act first and think later that what they did without thinking wasn't the best choice.
1) Maybe Ham was so surprised by having seen his father naked that his first impulse was to tell his brothers. That's my suggested motive.
2) Perhaps telling his brothers did involve something of the violation of voyeurism: Ham got a thrill he might not even have been conscious of from reporting what he saw. Or, he may have simply been a gossip. The latter makes sense, as I indicated previously.
3) Possibly, he was less considerate and thoughtful of others as you suggested, Ken, and thus simply didn't cover up Noah himself or keep his big mouth shut. A level of immaturity would explain either or both, too.
4) Seeing his father naked was so shocking that Ham dashed off to tell someone on impulse without considering that saying nothing was a better reaction. That's a very likely motive, also.
And finally, you still haven't answered my question, Ken, about how what Shem and Japhet did makes sense if Noah was raped or castrated.
You stated:
Yes, I agree that illicit sex could be a better understanding of the word you mentioned since the word is best understood that way in other places in the Bible. However, you've only insisted that understanding the word that way justifies your interpretation and haven't explained how all the details follow from that word meaning sexual assault. You've simply got to explain what Shem and Japhet did as making sense in the aftermath of sexual assault to persuade me that your interpretation is better. That presents a difficulty yet to be overcome by those favoring sexual assault.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 8, 2014 9:06:06 GMT -6
Okay, so let's suppose that Ham performed some kind of indecent sexual act upon Noah and wasn't merely a voyeur. Sodomy, for instance. Then, what kind of sense at all would Shem's and Japhet's covering their heads and walking backwards into the tent in order to put blankets over Noah's nakedness possibly signify? Laying a blanket over a man who's been raped? More idiotically, covering up the site of a castration while not looking as you do that? How amusing! One of the articles I cited tells you that. You aren't even close with your absurd guesses. You are another one who needs to know that the world is so much bigger than your pathetic limited education and experience have led you to believe. It is really big and it requires intelligence and study to get beyond the limits of your little world. I will admit that next to stevec you look brilliant but that isn't saying much. Anyone as ignorant and malicious as he is is bound to make you look good. That is saying very little. Ken, you are much closer than they. The concensus is that it was a castration with or without rape. Why? Because there are castration stories all over the ancient world that accomplished what Ham is apparently trying to accomplish which rape alone does not. Also, as one of the articles I cited explains, the Hebrew vocabulary used to describe what happened points that way. It is because of the possibility of rape, as well, that some scholars are proposing that it was Noah 's wife who was raped. I haven' t read anything that strikes me as a strong case for that view but Noah is not one of my strong interests. So I am afraid that it is still Christians 1 -- ignortant atheists 0
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 8, 2014 9:28:22 GMT -6
Stop the insults NOW, Mr. Eliott, or your posts in future will have all such edited out if the post isn't simply deleted because it is nothing but insult.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Eliott on Mar 8, 2014 9:59:03 GMT -6
Posting only to mock while amusing, gets old pretty fast. I rather imagine you would be the better for being mocked regularly. Unfortunately, what does you good, bores me.
Your refusal to learn is your issue to deal with. When you meet a chance to learn something, really learn something, that you could not have figured out on your own with a barrage of insults, you have called down opprobrium on your own head. Deleting my messages won't change that. Your disgrace remains for everyone to see (always assuming that you have any readers--a matter not to be taken for granted).
|
|